Unfortunatally “Last Word”, it is the eradication of White Christian / Judaic that is being enacted, White racial eradication by Psychological tactics of Guilt and Altruisms Dialectical materialism;
Once that has been achieved, it would only stand to reason it may well be the best as anarchy and the return to primitivism in a very short time.

Sneekepete is testimonial to that.

Have a guess what age category; and her employment status previously. It is these types that put us in the precarious position today.
Altruisms dialectical Materialism is the operative expression in this context.

Point to note for all the 'we're too populated camp'. Seeing as how you've made this all about us, why don't we have a look at it.

Accoriding to the ABS and DIMIA, immigration is essential for Australia to maintain the our lifestyle even at today's rates. Ignoring any intrinsic benefit as outlined by the author, the simple fact is that to support Australia's aging baby-boomers then we are going to need to have at least as many people paying tax in 30 years time as we do today. With most baby boomers expected to hang on until they hit 80, that means a net increase in population. As we are not breeding to the right levels now, then immigration is the only answer.

Hang on....

Well, actually there may be another.

Now that I think of it, I guess another thing we can do is decide that people born between 1946 and 1965 get no government support (medical, housing, etc) at all once they hit 50. That way we can continue to pay the bills with a smaller work force. Hell, it may even help with population problem by shuffling off a few boomers a little earlier that they would otherwise.

Suits everyone doesn't it? Lower Aussie population. No pesky immigrants with wierd clothes and strange ideas. More water for everyone once we bulldoze all the new golf courses being built for the retirement crowd.

As I was born after that it doesn't really bother me all that much. Probably make life simpler.

Sound like a plan to you?

Why does your government call a balanced demographic an "aging population" ?

What hurts most ? high interest rates, or having to pay half a million dollars for a house.

Are you cutting up your cake and selling it,
so you can buy... another cake ?

And what concern is there for our natural heritage?
My favorite example is the Australian lungfish, it has been doing just fine for five hundred million years, about 499 million years before your monkey ancestors grew opposing thumbs.

What a shame, it will soon be extinct, because the government needs a dam.

We need more water, because.., because of the drought.
1000 people a week moving to Queensland, the dams haven't gotten any bigger.

So, please help everybody,
Stop watering your garden,
Fit a water-saving shower head,
Recycle your milk bottles.
And follow your idiot treasurer to economic utopia.

Mylakhrion,

Australia is hardly in danger of running out of people. According to the ABS figures 2 babies are born and one net immigrant arrives for every person that dies. The population doubling time at the current 1.3% growth rate is about 53 years. The problem with bringing in young migrants to combat aging of the population is that the migrants grow old too. Then they also need pensions and health care. We could not get away with just deporting them when they hit retirement age. What happens then? Do still more migrants have to be brought in to look after them? When does the process end? At standing room only? Every country will eventually have to adapt to a stable age structure. Why not do it while there is still something worth saving?

I don't dispute that there are cultural and educational advantages in having some immigration, and that it is good to give very gifted people opportunities to develop their talents, but this could be accommodated on a one-out one-in basis. In general, if migration and population growth were as wonderful as the article says, then evidence of this would blaze forth in international comparisons and economic studies. It doesn't. Take a look at the CIA World Factbook on the Web. There is no link between GNP per capita and population size, growth rate, or density among developed countries, and a negative link with growth rate in the Third World. Every additional person in a developed country puts 8 to 20 times the pressure on the environment of an additional person in the Third World. (See the environmental footprints on the Redefining Progress site.) Our quality of life in the cities is getting worse because of overcrowding. I support the others who blame all this on a corrupt and greedy elite.

Moploki,
Do not be too concerned about 1000 people per week moving to Queensland. They are easing the water situation in Sydney, Melbourne, etc. We need to be more concerned about the number coming into Australia. With a nett immigration rate of 135000 per year, we get 2500 new arrivals per week, which have to be watered, fed and housed.

How we can keep bringing this ammount of people in without a population goal is simply asking for problems of all sorts.

With the world being over populated, I consider the payment of $4000 for women to have babies is ridiculous. If we want, we can make up any numbers we like by adjusting the immigration rate.

We urgently need the debate on our population and we need to be more selective to keep social problems to a minimum.

High immigration in Australia is absurd.

By far the most important thing that we need to be doing in this country is weaning ourselves of the continuous growth paradigm and onto a basis of genuine sustainability.

A necessary part of this is the balancing of demand on our resource base with the ability for that resource base to provide everything that we need while remaining healthy and keeping up the provision for the long term.

Any other concerns that are purported to run in favour of high immigration such as alleviating the stresses caused by an aging society or the maintenance of high economic growth are of vastly less importance than the sustainability imperative (They are highly flawed notions anyway).

We simply MUST look after the preservation of our own society first and foremost.

We can continue to contribute to world poverty as we do it, concentrating on expenditure at the sources of the problems, rather than the tendency to treat symptomatic issues.

Once we are confidently heading towards a secure sustainable society, we can ramp this right up. But if our society continues to gather stresses, and ultimately falls apart, which is where it is are heading, then we won’t be able to do anything to help global quality of life issues.